Saturday, May 29, 2010

A CNN article reports that an online movement to boycott BP is growing at a rate of better than 25,000 names a day. There are two "Boycott BP" Facebook pages .... a larger one with more than 191,000 fans (as of this writing) and a much smaller one with just over 7,000 fans.

Clearly, many people are frustrated over the oil spill, but I question the effectiveness of a boycott. While the CNN article reports that there has been a 30% decline in the amount of gasoline delivered to BP stations in parts of Florida within the past few days, I suspect it is the independent station owners who are most hit by the boycott and not BP. BP does not own any gas stations in the US.

While those boycotting the gasoline produced by the oil giant may feel some sort of "moral victory" with their attempt to punish BP, it's very possible that the aluminum can, that holds their beer or soft drink, was made with aluminum manufactured by BP subsidiary Arco Aluminum. Like most international companies, BP has it's finger in many pies, so to speak, and probably won't be harmed by the boycotts.

Sure, people are frustrated and angry, but the oil spill was not intentional; it was an accident. This situation is a PR nightmare for the company and I have no doubt that they are doing all that is humanly possible to fix the problem as quickly as they can. The idea that this boycott will force BP to clean up the mess any faster is naive.Recently, President Obama told us of his daughter coming to him and asking the question, "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?'” The question is cute, coming from a 12 year old child. However, the overgrown children boycotting BP should realize that this problem can't be fixed over night.

Likewise, I can't really say that I was shocked that Republican Congressman Connie Mack would do the same, but I was a bit disheartened. We know that the words "Democrat" and "responsible politician" are polar opposites. I realize, too, that the GOP has it's own share of air-heads as well. I only wish we had another alternative than replacing Democratic nincompoops with Republican ones.

To the best of my knowledge, Connie Mack has not openly admitted that he hasn't read Arizona's S.B. 1070 but, after reading his recent piece in the Washington Post [Why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law], I can't imagine that he has.Otherwise, how could he possibly maintain, as he does, that "This law clearly challenges citizens' freedoms, and it does so by putting some Americans at risk of losing their freedoms while others stand little or no chance of being affected." ?

Mack goes on to compare Arizona's new immigration law with the government (under Democratic President FDR) placing U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in detention camps during WWII.

He continues, "The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives."

As pointed out in Kirk Adams' piece (also from the Washington Post) the Arizona bill simply mirrors federal immigration law by making it a state crime to be in this country illegally. Contrary to folks like Holder, Napolitano and Mack, law enforcement cannot simply walk up to a person and say, "Can I see your papers?"

Adam's points out in his article that California has a similar law already in place - California Penal Code Section 834b . Maybe the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco should boycott themselves.

Update:Thanks to Les Femmes - The Truth for pointing out that the Frog Says, "Read the Bill! Then Secure the Border!"

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Growing up in the 1960's, we "baby-boomers" were convinced that we had, somehow or other, created a new world unlike any that had come before. We were, in our minds, revolutionaries. Our music was unsurpassed. Unlike "popular" music of the (ancient) past, ours would forever remain on the forefront of the culture. We smirked, in our smug, superior way, at the Muzak of Lawrence Welk blissfully unaware that John Lennon and Paul McCartney would become the Lawrence Welk of the 1990's and beyond.

As the recent controversy surrounding Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal proves, my fellow baby boomers who seek to advance in the political ranks continue to bring us all (willingly or not) back to the days of the Vietnam war. Today, 35 years after the fall of Saigon, 64 year old politicians running for the U.S. Senate view service in Vietnam as a resume enhancement; so much so, that stretching the truth misspeaking lying about having served in Vietnam comes easy for them.

O,the stained souls, the small-hours doubts, the troubled manhood of so many American men who didn't go to Vietnam when they could have -- the strange guilt they seem to feel when they confront Vietnam veterans.

I may have, for a brief moment, felt that same said "strange guilt" this past weekend while I listened to a Vietnam vet as he attempted to mesmerize someone young enough to be his son with tales of his year long stay in Vietnam. As much as I would have liked to join in the conversation with similar stories, I was not, however, tempted to do as Richard Blumenthal had done.I would not lie about having been in that war myself when the truth was that I have never been in the military.

Like many of my generation, I had absolutely no desire to fight in Vietnam. The reasons we may have given in those days for not wanting to go were far more noble than the actual truth. We would go on and on about the immorality and illegality of the war. We would speak of the corrupt South Vietnamese regime. But, we were, contrary to Richard Cohen, "spoiled shirkers". We were, by and large, more inclined to remain in the world of "sex, drugs and rock and roll" that was the United States.

We were undisciplined and anti-authority. The uncensored "Fish Cheer" was our anthem.

Anti-war protests were the order of the day. I submit that these protests were actually more anti-draft than anti-war. A wikipedia article claims"The draft lottery had social and economic consequences because it generated resistance to military service and the resisters, draft evaders or "draft dodgers", were generally young, well educated, healthy men."My recollection of those days is different. As I recall, those of us, like myself, who managed to get high numbers in the lottery didn't bother protesting any longer.

Over the years, I've come to realize that much of what we hear from those of us who protested the Vietnam war is a colorized, glossy version of reality. I believe that it is this fantasy version of the Vietnam era (error?) which fuels much of the Liberalism of today. I, for one, am willing to admit that I was not as noble then as I should have been. I wish more of my fellow baby-boomers would admit the truth as well.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

I'll be working an extra shift today so there will be no time for a lengthy post. However, with the job I'll be doing this morning, it will be easy enough to take my mind away from my rather boring task and instead, think about tomorrow's post.

Reading Richard Cohen's piece in the Washington Post today reminds me of something I already knew; my fellow, self-centered baby-boomers will not allow us to get over the Vietnam war. As long as one baby-boomer draws breathe, the war (and the anti-war protests) will be fought over and over again.

There isn't enough time for me to write about it today; so, I'll think about it today at work and post my thoughts on it tomorrow.

Friday, May 21, 2010

As expected, Liberals in the media are angry over Janine Denomme's excommunication and the Catholic Church's refusal to allow Denomme a Catholic funeral.

An article on the Huffington Post claims that Denomme was ordained a priest in April by a group called Roman Catholic Womenpriests. That's wrong, of course. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the "ordination" of women. Catholic women who pursue ordination excommunicate themselves from the Church. Denomme was aware of this but, she had "'always wanted to be a priest,' and decided to be ordained anyway."

For the life of me, I cannot understand the logic of the women who decide to call themselves Roman Catholic priests. Each one knows that Church teaching forbids the ordination of women and of course, each one disagrees with this teaching....each one believes the Church is in error. Why, then, do they wish to remain in the Church? I cannot understand why anyone would call themselves Catholic if they do not believe what the Church teaches - not just on the ordination of women but on the question of abortion or birth control or a variety of other issues. Can you imagine the reaction towards someone who wished to be called Jewish or Muslim though all the while insisting that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? Given her views on women in the priesthood, it would have seemed logical and consistent for Denomme to leave the Catholic Church and convert to the Episcopal church as Episcopal Bishop Diane Jardine Bruce did in 1986.

Prior to her illicit ordination in April, Denomme was diagnosed with cancer. She died May 17, according to her partner, Circuit Court of Cook County Judge Nancy Katz.

Although I feel sorry for Denomme, the refusal, by the Chicago Archdiocese, to allow her a Catholic funeral was the proper decision and completely understandable to those of us who follow Catholic teaching. Not only did she participate in an unlawful ordination but Denomme was in a long time lesbian relationship. As if those two were not enough, her "partner" was non - Catholic.

The supporters of women's ordination will shamelessly use Denomme's tragic death by cancer to further their cause. Countless people watching the linked video or reading of Denomme's story will sympathize and call for the Church to change. Thankfully for all of us, the Church will not bend to popular opinion. The Church will remain steadfast and for this we should all be grateful.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

I've lived in Rome, GA for thirty years. When I moved here in 1980, I knew only two people who called this small town their home. Now, obviously, I know many,many more. Of those hundreds of folks, I do not know anyone who is a member of St. Peter's Episcopal Church; at least I don't know anyone who admits to attending services there.

I wish I did know someone who calls St. Peter's their church home. I'd be very interested in knowing their reaction to the recent ordination of Mary Glasspool as bishop of the Los Angeles diocese. With this ordination, Glasspool became the second practicing homosexual to be named a bishop by the Episcopalians. An article about the ordination on lifesitesnews.com says that Glasspool has been living with her lesbian partner since 1988.

Do the Episcopalians in this small, sleepy, conservative town support the action of the Episcopal Church in the United States or are the locals more in tune with the Anglican Mainstream worldwide which believes the Episcopal Church should withdraw or be "excluded from the Anglican Communion's representative bodies"?

The ordination of openly homosexual bishops, such as Mary Glasspool and Gene Robinson, has torn a hole in the fabric of the Anglican Communion; one which, I'm sure, will only widen and eventually destroy the Anglican movement as we know it.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The website,irishcentral.com is reporting that Mrs. Bush opposes the new Arizona immigration law because her Irish immigrant ancestors faced discrimination. No doubt immigrants -past and present- have encountered prejudice, but I'm assuming her ancestors entered the country legally. Like far too many people, she confuses legal immigration with illegal entry into the country.

Another example of Mrs.Bush early senility is her support of Elena Kagan as Supreme Court Justice. Does she support Kagan because of Kagan's vast judicial experience? Of course not. Laura Bush wants to see Kagan on the court because she's a woman.

"I think it's great," she said, "I'm really glad that there will be three - if she's confirmed. I like to have women on the Supreme Court."

Monday, May 17, 2010

In a column from last week, Washington Post writer Ruth Marcus put in her 2 cents worth concerning the burning question, "Who is Elena Kagan?".

Immediately, Marcus attempts to assure her readers that Kagan is not gay. That issue preoccupied the minds of the Progressives last week. While Conservatives lamented the fact that Kagan has not left a paper trail that would give clues as to the sort of Supreme Court Justice she would be, the Left spent a good deal of time looking into Kagan's sexuality.

Marcus would have us believe that she is uncomfortable discussing the reasons why Kagan has never married......then proceeds to discuss that very issue. Marcus tells us that Kagan, rather than being a lesbian, is a smart woman with fewer choices. In Marcus' view, while men may not be turned off by intelligent women, men are turned off by women who are smarter than they are. Got it?

Marcus writes, "The smarter and more successful the woman, the more complicated the dating dynamic: how to leaven that intellect and competence to make the package a bit less threatening."

Obviously, men are pigs. We are horrible creatures because we would never marry a woman smarter than we are ........ let's not mention the fact that a woman may not want to marry a man who isn't quite as smart as she. It's a one-way street, I suppose.

Marcus also writes of the "brutal fact" that an unmarried man in his fifties can have a change of heart and marry a women in her 20's or 30's , but a woman in her fifties doesn't have the same choice. There is a great deal of truth in that. I know several men who are married to women 15, 20 or even 25 years younger. Heck, I'm one of those guys myself. You're unlikely to see many fifty-something year old women with thirty-something year old husbands.

Like many "inequalities" between men and women, this one has a biological component. A healthy man in his fifties can still father children; a woman the same age cannot get pregnant. Even with men who claim to have no desire to have children, this biological component has to have some affect, if only subconsciously.

Of course, there are other, more obvious reasons why Elena Kagan has never married, but I won't go there. At least not in this post.

Friday, May 14, 2010

I received the following as an email this morning. I believe it is worth sharing. The writer says he desires no credit, so he will remain anonymous.

Bob, I put this together this week. If you deem it worthy, share it as you please. I desire no credit.

Several people have asked my opinion on Elena Kagan's nomination to the highest court of this nation. I will give it my best shot. You and I may view our republic from different perspectives, but I trust that you will take my comments as my honest assessment of the situation.

Before I address the specific question, please allow me to explain my assessment of President Obama. I honestly believe that I am neither racist nor bigoted. However, I feel the election of our current president, together with the stranglehold on congress held by Reid and Pelosi and their minions could prove fatal to our republic as it was designed and has been for over two hundred years. I do not condone his expressed intent to "spread the wealth around" Where does he get the authority to tell you, me or any other citizen that "at some point you have made enough money?" These are not the ramblings of some right-wing talk show host. They are indisputable objective facts and words from his own lips.

He is hailed as the historic "first black president." Not only is that claimed distinction an inherently racial classification; but also it is an outright mischaracterization of reality. True, his skin color is darker than many in this country, and I feel certain that single physical trait led millions of "black" voters and many liberals suffering from "white guilt" to vote him into the presidency. Genetically, he is just as much white as he is black He is the chance biological result of a sexual encounter between a young white woman ideologue and a radical Kenyan rogue. That rogue somehow came to marry her when she was three months pregnant with with the current President of the United States. Culturally, he is far more non-black, having been abandoned by his father during infancy and reared by his mother, her parents and his Indonesian stepfather.

Let's don't forget his "mentor" in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted member of the Communist Party USA. Let's don't forget his 20-year attendance at the raging, virulent sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Let's don't forget his long association with William Ayers, an admitted terrorist bomber of public buildings. Ayers was the husband of Bernardine Dohrn, who worked at the prestigious Chicago law firm, Sidley Austin. She held a law degree. but because of her terrorist criminal conviction record, she could not be licensed to practice law; so the firm hired her as a paralegal. By the way, Obama was a summer associate at that firm; that's where he met the lovely Michelle, who was then an associate lawyer there. Is it at all reasonable to wonder whether coffee breaks at that firm might have been somewhat conducive to enhance one's radical orientation?

I think he knows that the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, will not allow him to shame the Constitution with his radical ideas, I think he fears that the the Court will act as it did when it threw out several of FDR's New Deal programs in the thirties. He is trying his own modern "court-packing plan. He has already placed Sotomayor, "a wise Latina woman, who can make better decisions than some white man who has not had her life experience."

Now it is Kagan, who, just as he, has no real experience in the real world. Her only accomplishments were to ban the ROTC recruiters from the Harvard law school (a ruling later overturned by the Supreme Court) and to argue unsuccessfully before that court in favor of a federal statute which was clearly violate of the First Amendment. In oral argument of that case, CITIZENS UNITED, she actually argued that a pamphlet, which is "pretty classic" electioneering" could be regulated by the federal government. The Court, of course, ruled against her on that, leading to Obama's shameful public insult to the court members at the State of The Union address. They attended as a matter of courtesy, yet had to sit there while being ridiculed to their faces.

You might have gathered that I am not a huge fan of these people, especially Barack, The Wicked Witch of the West and Dirty Harry Reid.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

OK, I admit it. I don't know a heck of a lot about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. From what I gather, though, not knowing a heck of a lot about her seems to be pretty much the standard response as to whether or not she should be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

According to an article in the Washington Post written by Michael Gerson, Kagan is a mystery even to her closest friends and supporters. Gerson quotes Tom Goldstein, a Kagan supporter, who said,

"I don't know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade."

We'd have to assume that Obama knows where Kagan stands on the issues most important to him. Are we to believe that the President is going to put someone on the Supreme Court ......someone who can influence the direction our country will take for decades to come ...... and yet not have a clue as to how she thinks?

I know, Obama claims to have sat in the pews listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright without hearing a word he said, but is anybody buying that?

The fact that Obama wants her on the Supreme Court is reason enough for me to say I don't. I don't like where Obama is trying to take this country; Is anyone surprised that I'd be opposed to his choice on who will replace Justice John Paul Stevens?

The identity politics have already started. The Left has launched the first volley in the cultural battle that always surrounds the Supreme Court. Ben Smith is reporting in Politico.com that Cathy Renna, a consultant for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, is upset over the Wall Street Journal's putting a 1993 photo of Kagan on it's front page .......a photo of Kagan playing softball. In the bizzaro world of Liberal identity politics, seeing a photo of Kagan playing softball will lead the American public to conclude that Kagan is a lesbian. The folks in GLAAD would love to see an openly gay Supreme Court justice, but they are fearful that Kagan's chances of getting on the Supreme Court will crash if she's thought to be a lesbian.

Somehow, I've missed something. I had no idea that women playing softball equals lesbian.

Like others, I am confused as to why the WSJ would choose this particular photo.Jenna Lowenstein, communications director for the National Stonewall Democrats said,

"I think it's strange that you'd go back 17 years to dig up a photo of someone who's one of hte [sic] most photographed women in the world today."

I wouldn't go so far as to say Kagan is one of the most photographed women in the world. I could name hundreds who've been photographed more often. I would say, however, that the photo of Kagan playing softball is probably the most flattering photo of her I've seen. It's certainly more flattering than the photo of her I posted yesterday.

We don't need to manufacture reasons to oppose Kagan. As I said, the fact that Obama likes her is reason enough for me to oppose her. This tactic of the folks in GLAAD is just an attempt to stifle any opposition to Kagan by implying that those of us who do not support her are against her simply because we think she might be gay.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Lovitz is the first nominee in almost 40 years without any experience as a judge.

During his announcement of his pick for the Supreme Court, Obama stated," I hadn't even considered nominating anyone from the long list of actors who had previously worked on Saturday Night Live until Al Franken was elected to the U.S. Senate and I witnessed first hand just how valuable this group can be towards the advancement of my agenda."

Saturday, May 8, 2010

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another's reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

As I mentioned in last Friday's post, the family drove to the Pittsburgh area to visit some dear friends. I wasn't inclined to post blog entries while there. We returned Tuesday (arriving home VERY early Wednesday) and my first post upon arriving was of a video made during a detour taken during the drive home.

A fun time was had by all.

While there, we attended Mass Sunday at St. Anne's located in the Castle Shannon community. The church is lovely - newer and much larger than our church here. The particular Mass we attended was celebrated, not by the pastor or the parochial vicar, but rather an older priest who fills in on occasion.

Sad to say, this fill-in priest took the opportunity to make a political statement during his homily. He gave us his thoughts on the controversial immigration law recently passed in Arizona. Like many opponents of this law, the priest does not have a complete grasp of the bill in question. Most of his views on the subject seem to be based on misinformation. We've heard his arguments before; he followed the liberal playbook, calling the bill racist and discriminatory because it would allow police officers to stop people at random and demand proof of citizenship. The new Arizona immigration law does not do that.

The law does require Arizona police to ask for immigration documents from a suspect if the person is being questioned regarding a different offense. People cannot be stopped at random and when stopped, the officers must have a "reasonable suspicion" that the suspect is in the country illegally.

In his homily, the priest went on to say that he hoped the bill would not be passed into law and that, surely it would be found to be in violation of the Constitution. The priest was unaware that the bill had already been passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by the Governor. That is proof enough for me that this priest is ill prepared to comment on current news events.

In one way, it's encouraging that a priest would take a stand on political issues and ask for those sitting in the pews to take action. However, I wish this priest knew what the heck he was talking about before going on a rant.

Cathy, J.P. and I recently took a trip to Pittsburgh, PA to visit friends. More about that later. For now, I want to include a Youtube video made during our detour in Montvale, VA on the way home.The video includes myself, Scott Randolph and David Frank. This is my first time jamming with Scott...though we come from the same small town. (I'm older and we traveled in different circles.) David and I used to play music together back in the day when we had hair.The video doesn't record the entire song, and I'm not as good as I used to be .... but it is what it is.